Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Florian · Guest

Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar with Kimberlites?
[/quote]
??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Florian · Guest

Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]On Oct 11, 1:11 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

What don>t you understand in "Northwest part of India to cross the
horn". If it crosses the horn it crosses the indian ocean ridge too.

What is it you can>t fathom about Scotese>s reconstructions that
show India not jumping any ridges?

I>ve asked you to point where this happens in Scotese>s
reconstructions.

This is simple request.
[/quote]
One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center:

It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India>s NW province go
souther than Africa>s horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
obviously norther than the gulf of Aden, docked along the arabian coast
and along the Seychelles plateau and that old basin between Madagascar
and Ethiopia.

Got it now? If you don>t, then make a drawing.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Florian · Guest

Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]Planetary growth by accretion is a validated model;
[/quote]
Pardon me? Oh yeah, I remember now that you easily confuse an hypothesis
and a validated model.

[quote]planetary growth through expansion
[/quote]
This not a simple volume expansion. Volume gain results from gain of
mass.

[quote]by no known mechanism is not a validated model.
[/quote]
You lost, it is validated by all kind of data.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:11 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
What don>t you understand in "Northwest part of India to cross the
horn". If it crosses the horn it crosses the indian ocean ridge too.

What is it you can>t fathom about Scotese>s reconstructions that
show India not jumping any ridges?

I>ve asked you to point where this happens in Scotese>s
reconstructions.

This is simple request.

One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center:

It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India>s NW province go
souther than Africa>s horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,
[/quote]
The ridge started to the South of India. As India moved to the North,
the ridge propagated to the North and West, and Aden didn>t open up
until
India had docked with Asia.

Either what you mean by "crossing a ridge" differs from what most
people
mean by "crossing a ridge", don>t understand Scotese>s reconstruction
or have some impairment that prevents you from noticing that India
didn>t
cross a ridge.

Stuart

docked along the arabian coast
[quote]and along the Seychelles plateau and that old basin between Madagascar
and Ethiopia.

Got it now? If you don>t, then make a drawing.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée..
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer[/quote]

George · Guest

"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
[quote]George <George@george.net> wrote:

Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers [...]

enough said...

--
Florian
[/quote]
This post is exactly why you have no credibility. It>s just like when you
claim that some author>s data demonstrates some nonsense in which the author
himself doesn>t actually support you. Gee, if one were to go by what you
posted, one might get the impression that I never go to the library. The
fact is that this is what I actually said:

"Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers ***you cite as a defense of
your arguments on usenet***." In other words, you>re just not that damned
important to me. You claim not to be a creationist, but you>ve obviously
taken logic lessons from them. Quote mining is the last defense of the
insane. Now, why don>t you take a hike and go f ck yourself!

George

don findlay · Guest

George wrote:

[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
George <George@george.net> wrote:

Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers [...]

enough said...

--
Florian

This post is exactly why you have no credibility. It>s just like when you
claim that some author>s data demonstrates some nonsense in which the author
himself doesn>t actually support you. Gee, if one were to go by what you
posted, one might get the impression that I never go to the library. The
fact is that this is what I actually said:

"Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers ***you cite as a defense of
your arguments on usenet***." In other words, you>re just not that damned
important to me. You claim not to be a creationist, but you>ve obviously
taken logic lessons from them. Quote mining is the last defense of the
insane. Now, why don>t you take a hike and go f ck yourself!

George
[/quote]
:-) George, ... coming out of his shell.. Wait till the
do..ron..ron.. starts singing. )

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?

??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

[/quote]
Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of
the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic
wave speeds to within a percent or two.

So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell, is that the
Earth>s
mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*, yet
current rising
material which gives rise to the expansion is now a substantially
different
composition then what has formed the Earth since it began expansion.

Kimberlites are rocks that have there origins in the upper mantle.
They have a
wide distribution of ages.

So EE is a *theory* in which the earth expands God knows why, through
the production
of God knows what.

Stuart

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?

??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of
the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic
wave speeds to within a percent or two.
[/quote]
Uh -uh. You begin with wave speeds, then determine petrologic models
from that. You said so yourself:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html#rubber
If there>s one thing you can>t deny in Plate Tectonics, it>s the use
of rubber..

[quote]
So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell, is that the
Earth>s
mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*, yet
current rising
material which gives rise to the expansion is now a substantially
different
composition then what has formed the Earth since it began expansion.

Kimberlites are rocks that have there origins in the upper mantle.
They have a
wide distribution of ages.

So EE is a *theory*
[/quote]
...No. An observation tantamount to fact. Unlike Plate Tectonics,
which unashamedly begins with the convenient assumption of a
Panthalassa
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html

[quote]in which the earth expands God knows why, through
the production
of God knows what.
[/quote]
No need to wave hands and ululate in tongues. It would seem logical
to think that it expands by a process whose manifestation at the
surface of the Earth is water, calcium, alumina, iron, magnesium, and
silica.

[quote]
Stuart[/quote]

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 14, 1:51 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
[quote]Stuart wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?

??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of
the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic
wave speeds to within a percent or two.

Uh -uh. You begin with wave speeds, then determine petrologic models
[/quote]
You use wave speeds to constrain the petrologic models. The starting
point of
these petrologic models is what we find in rocks like in Kimberlite,
Ophiolites and other complexes. You squeeze and
heat them and ask what seismic wave speeds do you get?. There are
other constraints too, such as mass
and moment of inertia. The statement has some circularity, but not
what you think.

My fundamental point is that there is something seriously wrong in
suggesting that just recently
(geologically speaking), new material causing the expansion is
different than the material
that comprises the bulk of the earth, that according to EE was
generated over the past billion years or so.
That is an inconsistency.

Any composition is possible for the rising material? Then what is the
connection between current Mantle
chemistry and previous expansion? How can current mantle bulk
chemistry be divorced from previous expansion which
purportedly increased the mass of the Earth by 60% if not more?

Stuart

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]On Oct 14, 1:51 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?

??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of
the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic
wave speeds to within a percent or two.

Uh -uh. You begin with wave speeds, then determine petrologic models

You use wave speeds to constrain the petrologic models. The starting
point of
these petrologic models is what we find in rocks like in Kimberlite,
Ophiolites and other complexes. You squeeze and
heat them and ask what seismic wave speeds do you get?. There are
other constraints too, such as mass
and moment of inertia. The statement has some circularity, but not
what you think.
[/quote]
Come off it. We>re not that daft. You begin with earthquake speeds.
Period. Then try to make sense of them. You frantically fish around
with stuff like syrup and food colouring, and work out from there. Of
course it>s exactly what I think:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/balloon.html
....and this one... :-
"Even modern researchers continue to make plumes in the lab, though
Karo syrup and blue food colouring are the fluids of choice
nowadays.. The basic results from these updated experiments, as well
as more advance computer models of plumes, are all similar. They
reinforce Whitehead>s original balloon-on-a-string image of hot-spot
plumes."

[quote]
My fundamental point is that there is something seriously wrong in
suggesting that just recently
(geologically speaking), new material causing the expansion is
different than the material
that comprises the bulk of the earth, that according to EE was
generated over the past billion years or so.
That is an inconsistency.
[/quote]
No, ..no.. No. That is not what is at issue. It>s your model of
planetary accretion that is in question. Sure, it>s nice idea, and it
'fits' (much like 'epicycles', ..but it says essentially that what is,
always was. Earth expansion says the arrow of geological time is
parallelled by the arrow of planetary evolution. The Planet is not
static. That>s the problem:- How do planets start, and how do they
grow, ..and I have to confess, there>s a certain symmetry of appeal in
JP>s progression from the rocky planets to the gas giants as
reflecting this evolution.

[quote]
Any composition is possible for the rising material? Then what is the
connection between current Mantle
chemistry and previous expansion? How can current mantle bulk
chemistry be divorced from previous expansion which
purportedly increased the mass of the Earth by 60% if not more?
[/quote]
Good questions, but they highlight the point of connectedness from
past to present. In the extrusion of the mantle (lower mantle) and
growth at the ridges, the Earth is providing us with a GREAT BIG CLUE
that I don>t think has even begun to be investigated yet. (If it had,
we wouldn>t be talking about this.)

[quote]

Stuart[/quote]

Florian · Guest

George <George@george.net> wrote:

[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
George <George@george.net> wrote:

Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers [...]

enough said...

This post is exactly why you have no credibility.
[/quote]
*You* don>t read papers given in references and *I* have no credibility?
Yeah right...

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Florian · Guest

Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center:

It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India>s NW province go
souther than Africa>s horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,

The ridge started to the South of India.
[/quote]
Not that simple. There was an initial ridge between India/Seychelles and
Madagascar that got extinct 60 My ago, because a new one developped
between India and Seychelles along the whole west coast of India.

[quote]As India moved to the North, the ridge propagated to the North and West,
and Aden didn>t open up until India had docked with Asia.
[/quote]
Stuart, get focused please.
As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
can>t put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
not make sense at all.

<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>

--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

George · Guest

"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iott9r.bzf9k91ahbku8N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
[quote]George <George@george.net> wrote:

"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
George <George@george.net> wrote:

Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers [...]

enough said...

This post is exactly why you have no credibility.

*You* don>t read papers given in references and *I* have no credibility?
Yeah right...

--
[/quote]
Thanks for proving my point.

"This post is exactly why you have no credibility. It>s just like when you
claim that some author>s data demonstrates some nonsense in which the author
himself doesn>t actually support you. Gee, if one were to go by what you
posted, one might get the impression that I never go to the library. The
fact is that this is what I actually said:

"Sorry. I don>t go to libraries to read papers ***you cite as a defense of
your arguments on usenet***." In other words, you>re just not that damned
important to me. You claim not to be a creationist, but you>ve obviously
taken logic lessons from them. Quote mining is the last defense of the
insane. Now, why don>t you take a hike and go f ck yourself!

George"

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 15, 12:09 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
You must understand that we don>t know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.

I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?

??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don>t know how that material forms.

Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic wave speeds to within a percent or two.

What happens at upduction zones is not what happens in the bulk of the
mantle.

So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell,
[/quote]

hahaha. I meant Maxlow.. LOL.

[quote]
1) You are the believer in a myth
2) Maxwell was one of the greatest physicists of all time and died in
1879.

is that the
Earth>s mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*,

How can you be so ignorant on a subject that you>re suppose to know by
heart? that>s not 60%, but more like 800% in 250 My.
[/quote]
Makes my point even better.

[quote]
yet current rising material which gives rise to the expansion is now a
substantially different composition then what has formed the Earth since
it began expansion.

Nope. Upduction does not account for the major part of the surface
expansion. The major part of surface expansion results from spreading
ridges.

[/quote]
LOL.

Stuart

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center:

It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India>s NW province go
souther than Africa>s horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,

The ridge started to the South of India.

Not that simple. There was an initial ridge between India/Seychelles and
Madagascar that got extinct 60 My ago, because a new one developped
between India and Seychelles along the whole west coast of India.

As India moved to the North, the ridge propagated to the North and West,
and Aden didn>t open up until India had docked with Asia.

Stuart, get focused please.
As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
can>t put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
[/quote]
Again, Scotese has no problems doing this.

Why don>t you get focused?

The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.

[quote]If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
not make sense at all.

[/quote]
No it does not. Either you>ll examine Scotese>s reconstruction or you
can keep flapping your gums.

Stuart


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Geology - Earthquakes Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6